I was browsing through Daily KOS yesterday and noticed that one of my Senators, Senator Durbin, had not committed to net neutrality. I decided to email him with my concerns and got a response this morning. See below for the response.
Thank you for your contacting me about telecommunications legislation
currently being considered by the Congress. I appreciate hearing from you.
On June 8, 2006, the House of Representatives passed the Communications
Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006, H.R. 5252. On
June 28, 2006, the Senate Commerce Committee passed its own, different
version of H.R. 5252. The Senate bill was previously known as the
Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006,
S. 2686.
These measures have attracted attention because of their provisions
related to national cable franchising and their omission of comprehensive
language related to network neutrality.
The House provision on national cable franchising would permit companies
to offer cable television service through a national franchise instead of
negotiating a franchise agreement with each locality where it wishes to
offer service, as is currently required. Cable operators new to a given
area would be required to pay the local franchising authority a fee of up
to five percent of the service's gross revenues. The provider would also
have to fund and set aside transmission space for public, educational, and
governmental (PEG) content channels equal in number to what is required of
the area's current cable providers. This number could be increased every
10 years by local authorities.
The Senate measure would require the Federal Communications Commission to
create a standardized franchise agreement form for use across the country,
and contains provisions similar to the House bill regarding franchise fees
and PEG channel requirements.
Opponents of national cable franchising argue that localities should be
able to use the free market to come to terms with cable providers, that
new entrants to the business should be subject to the same terms as
existing providers in each area, and that more channels should be set
aside for PEG content given the ability of new digital cable systems to
carry many more channels. Supporters believe that existing cable
providers' rates are excessive; that the entry of competitors will lead to
greater consumer choice, reduced costs, and improved customer service; and
that a nationwide patchwork of local governments should not be allowed to
hamper the offering of innovative video services throughout the country.
The House and Senate bills only briefly touch on network neutrality. The
Senate measure would establish an "Internet Consumer Bill of Rights" to
guarantee that Internet subscribers can freely access all legal Web sites
and services - including online calling services and video sites that
compete with phone and cable companies' own offerings. But it would not
bar broadband providers from favoring their own online traffic or striking
business deals with some Internet companies to guarantee fast, reliable
access to their customers.
The House bill would offer the FCC limited power to enforce an earlier,
non-binding set of broadly worded network neutrality principles it adopted
in late 2005. The FCC would only be able to act if a complaint alleging a
specific violation were to be filed, and it could not adopt or implement
rules to carry out the principles.
This language is one small step toward net neutrality, a principle
holding that Internet access providers should not be permitted to engage
in favoritism when configuring their networks and delivering Internet
content. Such favoritism could occur if a provider transmitted its own
offerings at faster speeds than those of its competitors or if a provider
charged digital content and application companies a fee for equally fast
delivery.
Opponents of network neutrality argue that a regime prohibiting "bit
discrimination" would deny network operators the opportunity to
differentiate their services from other providers, thereby stifling the
incentive to create innovative content for their customers. They also
argue that network operators may face greater difficulties in raising the
funding necessary for planned infrastructure upgrades if the improved
network speeds would benefit their competitors as much as themselves.
Proponents of network neutrality - including major Internet content
providers, hardware and software companies, and consumer groups - point to
the money that operators already receive from end user and content
provider access fees, the technological innovation that network neutrality
may encourage, and the lack of high-speed Internet access marketplace
competition, which leaves consumers in much of the country with little
opportunity to switch providers if their current provider were to engage
in bit discrimination against the services or applications preferred by
consumers.
I will keep your thoughts in mind in case this legislation is debated on
the Senate floor.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
Now, I don't see any indication of a yes or no vote in the response. But, I have to give him credit for responding so quickly. So, I will ask you, my fellow Kossacks, to let me know what you think the response means. Take the poll.